----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayal Baron" abaron@redhat.com To: "Dan Kenigsberg" danken@redhat.com Cc: "VDSM Project Development" vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 10:35:54 AM Subject: Re: [vdsm] flowID schema
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 10:32:49AM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
flowID makes no sense after the initial API call as stuff like cacheing\threadpools\samplingtasks\resources\asyncTasks so flowing a flow like that will not give you the entire picture while debugging.
Also adding it now will make everything even more ugly. You know what, just imagine I wrote one of my long rambles about why I don't agree with doing this.
I cannot imagine you write anything like that. Really. I do not understand why you object logging flowID on API entry point.
The question is, what problem is this really trying to solve and is there a simpler and less obtrusive solution to that problem?
correlating logs between ovirt engine and potentially multiple vdsm nodes is a nightmare. It requires a lot skill to follow a transaction through from the front end all the way to the node, and even multiple nodes (eg actions on spm, then actions on other node to run a vm). Having a way to correlate the logs and follow a single event/flow is vital.
vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel